Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1
Apr 20, 2013 10:00pm EDT
it was like 1988, i think, '85 or '88, bid mar v. vinson, in a dissent, says this is historically not credible. this is not what they meant when they passed the first amendment, and he went through right down the line what they meant, and the first amendment was simply that the congress shall not establish a nationa church. that's all they meant. they did not mean we had a secularizing state. and, unfortunately, that has become the law. that is, that's the way we think of things now. people think of jefferson's words before they even know what is in the first amendment, and i'm arguing for the radical -- well, i'm arguing for the radical position. but that's william rehnquist's position. he's, of course, deceased. that everson was bad law. it should be thrown out. all those establishment cases should be just chucked. they're confused -- they're too confused to be able to rectify, and a sign of that is the court itself can't figure out how to balance the establishment clause and freedom of religion clause, free exercise clause. they get continually entangled on their own feet. so that's the mor
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1